{"database": "deposition_transcripts", "table": "segments", "is_view": false, "human_description_en": "where deposition_id = 8", "rows": [[8879, 8, 0, "Page 1", null, null, "COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. INTERVIEW OF: HOWARD LUTNICK Wednesday, May 6, 2026 Washington, D.C. The interview in the above matter was held in 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 11:03 a.m. Present: Representatives Comer, Timmons, Ansari, Subramanyam, Khanna, and Walkinshaw."], [8880, 8, 1, "Page 2", null, null, "Appearances: For the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: DANIEL ASHWORTH, GENERAL COUNSEL BRITTANY BRIGNAC, SENIOR COUNSEL HANNAH CATHEY, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER JESSICA COLLINS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR JACK EMMER, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR INVESTIGATIONS EMILY FEYERABEND, COUNSEL BILLY GRANT, DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL FOR INVESTIGATIONS WILL HARNICE, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER MARK MARIN, STAFF DIRECTOR PETER SPECTRE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OVERSIGHT ELLISON TOLAN, COUNSEL ASHLEE VINYARD, DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR , MINORITY DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR , MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR , MINORITY SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR , MINORITY RESEARCH ASSISTANT , MINORITY RESEARCH ANALYST , MINORITY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND CHIEF CLERK"], [8881, 8, 2, "Page 3", null, null, ", MINORITY SENIOR COUNSEL , MINORITY LEGAL INTERN , MINORITY SENIOR COUNSEL , MINORITY FELLOW , MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL For HOWARD LUTNICK: ZACHARY TERWILLIGER MIKE CROWLEY VINSON & ELKINS 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20037 AUSTIN MAYRON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE THOMAS BARNHORST, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY"], [8882, 8, 3, "Page 4", null, null, "Mr. Emmer. We will go on the record. This is a transcribed interview of Secretary Howard W. Lutnick, conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, under the authority granted to it pursuant to House Rule X. Accordingly, House Rule X grants the committee broad jurisdiction for the committee to conduct investigations of any matter at any time. This interview is requested by Chairman James Comer as part of the committee's investigation into the circumstances and subsequent investigation into the circumstances and subsequent investigations and the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the operation of sex trafficking rings and ways for the Federal Government to effectively combat them, the ways in which Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell sought to curry favor and exercise influence to protect their illegal activities, and potential violations of Ethics rules related to elected officials. Can the witness please state his name and spell his last name for the record? Secretary Lutnick. Howard Lutnick, L-u-t-n-i-c-k. Mr. Emmer. Thank you. I want to thank Secretary Lutnick for appearing voluntarily here today. My name is Jack Emmer and I am the chief counsel for investigations for Chairman James Comer. Under the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's rules, you are allowed to have counsel present to advise you during this interview. Do you have counsel representing you present with you today? Secretary Lutnick. Yes. Mr. Emmer. Will counsel please identify themselves for the record? Mr. Terwilliger. Zach Terwilliger, partner at Vinson & Elkins law firm. Mr. Crowley. Michael Crowley, associate, Vinson & Elkins."], [8883, 8, 4, "Page 5", null, null, "Mr. Mayron. Austin Mayron, Department of Commerce. Mr. Emmer. Thank you. For the record, starting with the majority staff, can the additional staff members please introduce themselves with their name, title, and affiliation. Mr. Grant. Billy Grant, deputy chief counsel for investigations, Chairman Comer. Mr. Spectre. Peter Spectre, director of oversight for Chairman Comer. Ms. Tolan. Ellison Tolan, counsel, Chairman Comer. Ms. Cathey. Hannah Cathey, professional staff member, Chairman Comer. Ms. Feyerabend. Emily Feyerabend, counsel for Chairman Comer. Ms. Brignac. Brittany Brignac, senior counsel, Chairman Comer. Mr. Ashworth. Daniel Ashworth, general counsel for Chairman Comer. Mr. Harnice. Will Harnice, professional staff member for Chairman Comer. Ms. Vinyard. Ashlee Vinyard, deputy staff director for Chairman Comer. Ms. Collins. Jessica Collins, communications director for Chairman Comer. , chief counsel, Ranking Member Garcia. , senior counsel, Ranking Member Garcia. , research assistant, Ranking Member Garcia. , research analyst, Ranking Member Garcia. , senior counsel, Ranking Member Garcia. , senior policy adviser, Ranking Member Garcia. , legal intern, Ranking Member Garcia. , comms director, Ranking Member Garcia. , staff director, Ranking Member Garcia. , fellow, Ranking Member Garcia. , deputy staff director for Ranking Member Garcia."], [8884, 8, 5, "Page 6", null, null, "Mr. Emmer. Thank you. We have Members of Congress present today. Starting with the Chairman, can the majority Members intro and then the minority Members. Chairman Comer. James Comer, Kentucky. Mr. Timmons. William Timmons, South Carolina. Mr. Emmer. Thank you. Secretary Lutnick, before we begin, I would like to go over the ground rules for this interview. The questioning will proceed in rounds. The majority will ask questions for up to an hour, and then the minority will have an opportunity to ask questions for up to an hour if they choose. To the extent Members have questions for the witness, they will be propounded during their side's respective rounds. The clock will stop if you need to confer with counsel, your counsel is speaking, and when Members or staff are speaking during the opposing side's rounds of questions. We will alternate back and forth until there are no more questions. Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick. I do. Mr. Emmer. There is a court reporter taking down everything I say and everything you say to make a written record of the interview. For the record to be clear, please wait until the staffer questioning you finishes each question before you begin your answer, and the staffer will wait until you finish your response before proceeding to the next round. Further, to ensure the court reporter can properly record this interview, please speak clearly, concisely, and slowly. Also, the court reporter cannot record nonverbal answers, such as nodding or shaking your head. So it is important that you answer each question with an audible, verbal answer. Exhibits may be entered into the record. Majority exhibits will be identified numerically."], [8885, 8, 6, "Page 7", null, null, "Minority exhibits will be identified alphabetically. Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick. I do. Mr. Emmer. We want you to answer our questions in the most complete and truthful manner possible. So we will take our time. If you have any questions or do not fully understand the question, please let us know. We will attempt to clarify, add context to, or rephrase our questions. If we ask about specific conversations or events in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words or details, you should testify to the substance of those conversations or events to the best of your recollection. If you recall only a part of a conversation or event, you should give us your best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you do recall. Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick. I do. Mr. Emmer. Although you are here voluntarily and you will not be sworn in, you are required by law, pursuant to title 18 of the United States Code, section 1001, to answer questions from Congress truthfully. This also applies to questions posed by congressional staff in this interview. Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick. I do. Mr. Emmer. If at any time you knowingly make false statements you could be subject to criminal prosecution. Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick. I do. Mr. Emmer. This includes both knowingly providing false testimony but also stating that you do not recall or remember something when, in fact, you do. Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick. I do."], [8886, 8, 7, "Page 8", null, null, "Mr. Emmer. Furthermore, you cannot tell half-truths or exclude information necessary to make statements accurate. You are required to provide all information that would make your response truthful. A deliberate failure to disclose information can constitute a false statement. Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick. I do. Mr. Emmer. Is there any reason you are unable to provide truthful testimony in today's interview? Secretary Lutnick. No. Mr. Emmer. Please note that, if you wish to assert a privilege over any statement today, that assertion must comply with the rules of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Pursuant to that, committee rule 16(c)(1) states, \"For the chair to consider assertions of privilege over testimony or statements, witnesses or entities must clearly state the specific privilege being asserted and the reason for the assertion on or before the scheduled date of testimony or appearance.\" Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick. I do. Mr. Emmer. Ordinarily, we take a 5-minute break at the end of each hour of questioning, but if you need a longer break or a break before that, please let us know, and we will be happy to accommodate. However, to the extent that there is a pending question, we would ask that you finish answering the question before we take a break. Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick. I do. Mr. Emmer. Do you have any other questions before we begin? Secretary Lutnick. No."], [8887, 8, 8, "Page 9", null, null, "Mr. Emmer. Do you have an opening statement that you would like to read? Secretary Lutnick. I do. Mr. Emmer. You may proceed. Secretary Lutnick. Chairman Comer, members of the committee, and committee staff, I unequivocally condemn the conduct attributed to Jeffrey Epstein and everyone who participated in his illegal activities. The survivors of his crimes deserve our respect and support. I voluntarily agreed to appear and answer questions in connection with this committee's investigation. I would like to begin by briefly describing my virtually nonexistent interactions with this individual who lived adjacent to my New York City home. In 1997, I purchased an unfinished townhouse as my family home in New York City. Renovations took several more years than expected due to the events of September 11th terrorist attacks and their impact on me, my family, and all of my coworkers in the World Trade Center. Approximately 8 years after our purchase, in 2005, my family and I finally moved into our new home, which happened to be adjacent to his residence. Shortly thereafter, my wife and I were invited by that individual to his residence for coffee. During this brief interaction that included my wife, me, and this individual, he made a crude and gross remark in my wife's presence, which caused us to cut the visit short and leave. Immediately following that brief initial meeting, as we walked back to our home, my wife and I discussed the encounter and that, given his clear lack of boundaries, I would never establish a personal or professional relationship with him. And that is exactly what I did. Following this 2005 interaction, my only other two interactions with Epstein over the ensuring -- ensuring -- ensuing 14 years were both meaningless and inconsequential. My second interaction occurred 6 years later, in 2011, when his staff initiated contact with my"], [8888, 8, 9, "Page 10", null, null, "office, suggesting he had a reason to get in touch with me. Our offices attempted to connect us by phone over the course of several weeks but were unable to do so. Ultimately, to the best of my recollection, his staff indicated he would be in his residence on a particular weekend afternoon. And my staff arranged for me to ring his bell, during my and my wife's typical Sunday walk around the block with our dogs, to hear what he had to say. My best recollection is: I rang the bell, sat in his foyer with my dog, waited for him to come down, heard what he had to say, and left. As far as I recall, it was about scaffolding. It was meaningless and inconsequential. Next, some 18 months later, in late 2012, his staff inexplicably contacted my office, unprompted, regarding my family's planned holiday travels to the Caribbean. Unbeknownst to me, his staff somehow had become aware that my family and I would be near his island over the holidays, although they were apparently unsure whether that meant during the Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays. I still have no idea how his staff discovered my family's vacation plans or why they pursued arranging a visit with me. From what I have since learned, it appears he was initially seeking a meeting with just me. My wife made clear, however, that we had a large traveling party of approximately 12-plus people, and if we were to come, it would be with everyone. My family of six and another family of six, had a brief, meaningless, and inconsequential lunch and then left. To the best of my recollection, those were the only three occasions in which I interacted with Epstein in person. Each and every one was meaningless and inconsequential. To put this in perspective, Epstein lived in the house next door to my family for 14 years, and in that entire time, I interacted with him in person only three times. Again, each meaningless and inconsequential."], [8889, 8, 10, "Page 11", null, null, "I had no personal or professional relationship with this individual, despite the proximity of our addresses. Further, at no time during these limited interactions did I witness any conduct, let alone the type of illegal conduct of which we have since become aware. In closing, after our first interaction, my wife and I discussed that I would not establish a personal nor professional relationship with that individual. On a podcast in October 2025, I informally recounted that conversation. What I said on the podcast, regarding my conversation with my wife, was correct. I did not establish a personal or professional relationship with that individual. The documents and my prior testimony confirm that. I am here to answer your questions. Mr. Emmer. Thank you. We have since had a Member join. Can they please announce themselves for the record? Ms. Ansari. Hi, Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, Arizona. Mr. Subramanyam. Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia. Mr. Emmer. The time reads 11:18, and the majority's time will begin now. EXAMINATION BY MR. EMMER: Q Secretary Lutnick, I understand you've had a long career, but can we just start by, can you briefly walk us through your professional career up until now? A Sure. I graduated from Haverford College in Pennsylvania, and my first job was with Cantor Fitzgerald, and I never had another job. So I stayed at the same firm my entire career. And, if you had asked me or my family 2 years ago, \"would that be true,\" I would've assumed it would be for the full amount of my career. And then I left Cantor Fitzgerald to join the Trump administration as the Secretary of Commerce. So it's a rather simple career, one job since college, and then a second job working for"], [8890, 8, 11, "Page 12", null, null, "the administration. Q Thank you. And, again, we appreciate your public service and agreeing to testify voluntarily. Let's talk about your contact with Epstein, and we appreciate the personal -- or the statement that you made. But let's start from the beginning. When did you first meet Jeffrey Epstein? A I first met Jeffrey Epstein when his staff knocked on our door and invited my wife and I to come next door for coffee to -- he lived in the townhouse adjacent to ours. And then, sometime later, my wife and I went over to his house for coffee. It would be literally 8 or 10 steps next door. Q And who was the staffer that knocked on your door? A Well, I don't know, and I didn't answer the door. I have someone who works for me who answers the door. Q So you were invited. What happened when you showed up at Mr. Epstein's residence? A My best recollection is: We walked next door. Someone answered the door. We went -- we went through his foyer, up a big flight of stairs to his living room, and sat in his living room and had coffee. Mr. Grant. Excuse me. What year was this roughly? Secretary Lutnick. This was 2005. Mr. Grant. Thank you. BY MR. EMMER: Q And you said that you had coffee with him. What were the nature of your conversations with him during this coffee? A I don't recall. Q And approximately how long did this coffee last?"], [8891, 8, 12, "Page 13", null, null, "A A short -- reasonably short amount of time, maybe 10 or 15 minutes. And then he offered us a tour of his house. Q And I recognize that you touched on this in your opening statement, but, again, when did you purchase the property? A So I purchased my property in 1997, and then -- but it was an unfinished property, meaning, the residents were pigeons and mice. I mean, literally unfinished. I mean pigeons flying around. So it required extensive building. I wouldn't even say renovations. It didn't have a heating or air conditioning system. It was a raw structure. Q And you said you moved into the property in 2005. Correct? A That's right. Q And, in between the purchase and the renovations you made, you had no contact with Mr. Epstein whatsoever? A Zero. Q What did you know about Mr. Epstein prior to this interaction? A I didn't know of him. I don't recall knowing anything about him. Q You had no understanding of what his job was when you initially met him? A I did not. Not that I recall. Everything I say would be what I recall today, so. Q And, again, you brought this up in your opening statement, but this first interaction, you going to his home for coffee, that is the interaction you described on the Pod Force One podcast. Is that right? A Yes. And I went with my wife next door. He invited my wife and I over to welcome us to the neighborhood, is what my recollection is. Q And, for the record, I am referring to the October 1st, 2025, Pod Force One podcast that you appeared on as a guest with Miranda Devine, which we'll discuss in more detail shortly."], [8892, 8, 13, "Page 14", null, null, "So you have this coffee. What happened next? A Or he -- he offered, \"Would you like a tour of the house,\" and we said, \"Sure.\" And then we had a tour, and we went across the hall where, you know -- across from the living room is generally the dining room -- and he opened the door, and there was a massage table. And I saw his massage table, and that ended the tour. Q So you did not see the rest of the house? One room is what you're saying? A One room. That's my recollection. Mr. Spectre. Secretary Lutnick, you mentioned in your opening statement that he demonstrated -- that Mr. Epstein demonstrated a clear lack of boundaries, I think was the word that you used. Are you referring to the massage table in that? Secretary Lutnick. No. So we were in the living room. So I saw the living room, and then we went, and he opened the door to the room across the hall, which was what I had assumed would be the dining room, but he opened it, and there was a massage table. And his lack of boundaries was what he said. Mr. Spectre. What did he say? Secretary Lutnick. I asked him why he had a massage table in the middle of his house. This is the best of my recollection. It's not, like, precisely what was said. This is a general recollection of something that's 21 years ago. So -- and I said, \"How often do you have a massage?\" And he said -- my best recollection is, he said, \"Every day and the right kind of massage.\" And he said it to me, and my wife is standing next to me, and we looked at each other, and we left. BY MR. EMMER: Q For the record, what did you interpret Mr. Epstein to mean when he said \"the right kind of massage\"? A That it would become in some form sexual in nature. And that's -- and that's what I assumed it meant."], [8893, 8, 14, "Page 15", null, null, "Q And, at this point, did you ask to end the tour, or you just said, \"We're going to leave\"? A I don't remember precisely what we said, but we basically excused ourselves and departed. Q Did your wife ask Mr. Epstein any questions related to the massage table? A I don't recall her speaking, no. Q So, on the podcast, you said, after seeing the massage table in Mr. Epstein's house and the six, eight steps it took for you and your wife to get back to your house, you decide, and I'm quoting, \"that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.\" Is that an accurate characterization of the statements you made on that podcast? A That is an informal, incomplete discussion that my wife and I had as we walked back, the point of which was that, when I discussed it with my wife, that I, Howard Lutnick, would not have a personal or professional relationship with this person because he obviously doesn't have boundaries. So just avoid him. I should avoid him. And that's what we discussed. It's not verbatim what we said because this is 21 years ago, but it's -- and it is what I did. I avoided that person. Q And I believe my colleague may have been asking a similar question, but that feeling that he was disgusting, that was based solely on interaction with Epstein after you saw the massage table and asked him about it. Is that right? A It was based on his comment that was inappropriate and gross to me and my wife. It just was off-putting, and we left. Q It's been reported, and we've seen by the files released by the Department of Justice, that Mr. Epstein decorated his home with creepy and disturbing artwork. Did you notice any unusual artwork at his residence when you visited? A The living room, which I saw, did not have anything creepy or unusual in it. Q You didn't notice any paintings or photos of nude women or girls in it -- on it when you visited his property?"], [8894, 8, 15, "Page 16", null, null, "A No. And I would've noticed them, so, no. Q So I want to talk more about your appearance on the Pod Force One podcast and the statements that you made, but first, generally, how did this appearance come about? A I don't know offhand. I think my comms -- you know, it comes from your communications director, sets it up. I don't know. Q And the topic of Jeffrey Epstein was the first topic during this appearance. Did you know that you would be discussing Jeffrey Epstein when you agreed to go on this podcast? A No. I thought I was going on to talk about September 11th. Q So we talked about the statements that you made after seeing the massage table -- that guy's gross, disgusting, you'll never be in the room with him again, and you said it was just a one-and-done. Is that a fair characterization of your statements? A No, I think the right way to think about it is my wife and I discussed that I would not be in the room with him for professional, philanthropic, or social reasons, meaning, don't form -- the simplest way to say it is \"don't form a personal or professional relationship with him; avoid establishing one because he has no boundaries,\" right? He said something inappropriate; just avoid him. And I did. So that was the discussion with my wife. It was informal. I wasn't trying to be precise. I was trying to have people understand that I -- that my wife and I discussed that I would not establish a personal or professional relationship with him, and that I did not. Thereafter, I did not. Q During the podcast, would you dispute any characterization that you implied that, after this initial interaction, you would never interact with Mr. Epstein again? A I would. The characterization suggesting that I couldn't be in the room -- that I personally -- A, it was discussion with my wife that I, as a man, should avoid being with him because he has no boundaries, and that won't work well for me in my life if I'm with someone with no"], [8895, 8, 16, "Page 17", null, null, "boundaries. So avoid him. That was the discussion I had with my wife, and I did avoid him. So it is true what I said. It wasn't that I couldn't be -- if he -- as the Members know, often people come up to you and, you know, say hello to you in a big crowd. I wasn't saying that couldn't occur. It didn't occur, but the point I was making is I would not have a personal and professional relationship with him. I would avoid it, and I did avoid it. Q Did you interact with Epstein after the initial interaction that you described on the podcast? A As I said in my opening statement, I had two in-person interactions with him thereafter over the next 14 years -- even though I lived adjacent to him, two interactions over the next 14 years, both meaningless and inconsequential. Q And we will get into more specifics, but you did visit Epstein's private island. Is that right? A I did visit Jeffrey Epstein's private island with my wife and my children and another couple and their four children and staff, yes. Q I want to briefly talk about statements that you made related to -- and I'm going to -- your statement was that Epstein had an MO to give massages to influential individuals and -- that he used it as blackmail. For the record, that was based not on firsthand knowledge. Is that right? A Correct. Mr. Terwilliger. I'm sorry, Counsel. Would you mind just letting us know where that statement's coming from? Mr. Emmer. During the same podcast. Mr. Terwilliger. Thank you. Mr. Emmer. And I'll be happy to pull out the transcript if you guys need a -- Mr. Terwilliger. No. Just was curious where -- just wanted to make sure we were tracking"], [8896, 8, 17, "Page 18", null, null, "where you were pulling the statement from. Thank you. . We can't hear back here. Secretary Lutnick. I was just speculating for a podcast. I had no personal information. I was just speculating for a podcast. BY MR. EMMER: Q For the record, sir, did Jeffrey Epstein ever inform or represent to you that he was part of any intelligence service of any nation, including the United States? A No. Q So how would you characterize your relationship with Mr. Epstein? A I had no personal or professional relationship with him. I had two interactions in person that were meaningless and inconsequential. I would say I had no relationship with him. Q How often did you interact with Epstein in a personal capacity? A I met him once in 2005. I had two meaningless and inconsequential other personal interactions. And I tried to think about this as many times as I can, and I cannot think of any others, nor do the documents show any others. Q Besides the in-person interactions, which, again, we'll talk about more specifically later, did you email, have phone calls with Mr. Epstein? A I do not recall ever having a phone call with Mr. Epstein, and I think I had one set of email interactions with Mr. Epstein personally that went -- meaning four were written by me to him, but in one -- effectively one conversation. I mean, I said A; he responded B; I wrote C; he responded D. And I think there were a total of four in one day once. Q For the record, you've mentioned the visit to the island, the tour of the townhome. Did you ever visit Epstein's Palm Beach home? A No."], [8897, 8, 18, "Page 19", null, null, "Q Did you ever visit Epstein's New Mexico ranch? A No. Q His Paris apartment? A No. Q Did you ever visit any other property owned or leased by Mr. Epstein? A No. Q Did Mr. Epstein ever invite you to any of his properties? A No. Q Did you ever fly on any of Mr. Epstein's private planes? A No. Mr. Spectre. And, just for clarity on the record, you had -- besides the two interactions you discussed at Epstein's New York home, did you ever visit that home at any other time when he was not present? Secretary Lutnick. No. BY MR. EMMER: Q Did Mr. Epstein ever fly on one of your private planes? A No. Q Did you ever fly with Mr. Epstein on any aircraft? A No. I had no other personal interactions with him. Just the three. So I'm happy to say, no, but they're by definition \"no\" since I had no personal interactions with him. Q To the best of your recollection, when was the last time you communicated with Mr. Epstein? A It's the one email exchange in 2018, and that is the only one I know of actually. Q Thank you. Secretary, the committee is also investigating Maxwell. Do you know Ghislaine Maxwell?"], [8898, 8, 19, "Page 20", null, null, "A From the newspapers. Q Have you ever met Ghislaine Maxwell? A I met her once. Q Can you explain to the committee when you met her? A To the best of my recollection, I met her once. It was at a Rockefeller Institute fundraiser in New York City. Q And what were the nature of your conversations with Ms. Maxwell, to the best of your recollection? A Meaningless and inconsequential. Mr. Grant. Do you know roughly what year this meeting would've occurred? Secretary Lutnick. I don't. Mr. Spectre. Did you know her to be affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein when you met her? Secretary Lutnick. No. BY MR. EMMER: Q Who else was present when you met her? A Well, it was a charity fundraiser for Rockefeller Institute, which is the premier medical research institution in New York, which is adjacent to New York hospital. Q Thank you. Secretary Lutnick, in 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein. In July 2006, Epstein was arrested for the first time for soliciting prostitution from minors. When did you first learn of Jeffrey Epstein's 2006 arrest? A I don't recall whether -- when or whether I knew that. So I just have no recollection whether I knew that or not. Mr. Spectre. Mr. Epstein reportedly had to register as a sex offender after he was convicted of that 2006 offense."], [8899, 8, 20, "Page 21", null, null, "Were you ever notified -- by way of him being your neighbor -- were you ever notified about his status? Secretary Lutnick. No. Mr. Spectre. Did you have children under the age of 18 at that -- during that time? Secretary Lutnick. Yes. BY MR. EMMER: Q And, to be clear, did you ever have reason to suspect Mr. Epstein was sexually abusing young women and girls? A No. Q Did anyone around you ever discuss Mr. Epstein and his arrest in Florida? A Not that I can remember, no. Q Secretary Lutnick, you touched on this in your opening statement, but to be clear, you visited Little Saint James, Epstein's island, in December of 2012. Is that right? A In 20- -- around just before Christmas 2012, I visited the island for lunch with my wife, my children, my friends -- my friend, his wife, their children, and my staff for an hour, I did. I'm not sure I knew the name of it either. Q If I said that your visit was on December 23rd of 2012, would you dispute that statement? A I would not. Mr. Emmer. At this time, I would like to introduce as majority exhibit 1, this is EFTA2151530, and I will give you a moment to review. [Lutnick Majority Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.] Secretary Lutnick. Okay. BY MR. EMMER:"], [8900, 8, 21, "Page 22", null, null, "Q So I'll read this into the record. This is an email from Tuesday, November 20th, of 2012, sent by Lesley Groff. The subject line reads \"Jeffrey Epstein.\" The email reads, \"Hello, Mr. Lutnick, Jeffrey Epstein understands you will be down in St. Thomas some over the holidays. Jeffrey requested I please pass along some phone numbers to you so the two of you can possibly get together. Any numbers you wanted to pass along to Jeffrey would be great as well.\" I will say, it appears that you were the recipient of this email. Do you recall receiving it? A It may be helpful for you to understand that, if the email says \"Howard Lutnick\" or \"Lutnick, Howard\" those went to Matthew Gilbert. They did not go to me. They were not -- meaning, I would never see them. They went to Matthew Gilbert. You would know if they went to me if they are listed as \"HWL\" and -- because I received hundreds of emails, sometimes thousands. And they went to Matthew Gilbert, and I would not see them. So these would've gone to him, and I would not have seen them. Q I understand. And, for the record, that's why Matthew Gilbert would've been the individual who responded to this email. Is that right? A I mean, he would respond sometimes in his name, but he would also respond sometimes to the same email in my name. Q And you discussed the invite in your opening statement, but I'm going to ask you again. How did your visit to Little Saint James come about? Who coordinated it? A What I still cannot understand is this November 20, how or why, without any communication for years would he inexplicably know where I'm going. It's unsettling, actually. But this is how it happened. You know, I don't know why it happened, but this is -- you're actually literally seeing how it happened, but it is inexplicable that he would -- and his staff would know where I was going to be. I had no interactions with him."], [8901, 8, 22, "Page 23", null, null, "Q So, to be clear, you did not reach out, yourself, to tell Mr. Epstein that you were going to be in the U.S. Virgin Islands over Christmas. Is that right? A Yes. Q And -- A Yes, that is correct. I did not in any way contact or have any connection to him. Q And it would be safe to say that the invite surprised you? A I find it unsettling and inexplicable. Q Who else was involved in coordinating this trip to the island? A I have no recollection. So I can't give you more information. I just have no recollection of it. Q During our review of the documents that have been released, it appeared that your wife may have been in contact with Epstein's team. Did she ever say anything to you about the island visit? A Not that I can recall now, no. Mr. Spectre. Do you know if anyone on your staff or anyone else close to you had a connection with Mr. Epstein or his staff? Just trying to understand how he may have been aware of your travels. Secretary Lutnick. Me too. I find it inexplicable and unsettling, and just reading this sort of -- it's bothersome. So, no, I don't know. Mr. Emmer. So you arrive on the island on December 23rd. To the best of your recollection, can you describe the events? What happened when you arrived to the island? Secretary Lutnick. Sure. So it's 14 years ago. So it's not -- I went for lunch with my wife and my four children, my friends -- a couple and their four children -- and staff and boat staff. So it was probably 15, 16 people went for lunch. We sat outside, had lunch. It was boring. We left."], [8902, 8, 23, "Page 24", null, null, "Mr. Spectre. Did this friend and their family that was with you have any prior connection with Mr. Epstein, or were they there as your guests and for your visit to your neighbor? Secretary Lutnick. They were just there as my guests, but I don't know -- and I've never heard -- that they had any contact whatsoever with him. Mr. Spectre. Prior or subsequent to the visit? Secretary Lutnick. Prior or subsequent. Mr. Spectre. Thank you. BY MR. EMMER: Q Mr. Epstein didn't offer you a tour of the island while you were there? A No. Other than we walked, I think -- like from where we had lunch, there was a -- this is my best recollection -- is there was, like, a cliff. So we went and sort of looked at the water. Q What were the nature of your conversations with Mr. Epstein during this visit? A Meaningless and inconsequential. I was with my wife and my children and my friends -- another couple and their children. It was a big crowd, and we had lunch and left. Q Besides the group that you arrived with, who else was present on the island? A Just staff. We were -- you know, we were outside under sort of a cover, outside area. That was it. Q Did you see any young women or girls on the island? A No. Q And I asked this in the context of the New York townhome, but did you notice any weird or unusual artwork when you visited the island? A No. I wasn't inside any building. I don't recall being inside any building. Q And you never visited the island again. Is that right? A That's correct, never. Q Did you ever hear rumors about the island -- obviously, now it has the nickname"], [8903, 8, 24, "Page 25", null, null, "\"pedophile island\" -- nothing of that sort prior to or around the time that you visited? A No, of course not. In 2019, we all learned lots of information, but nothing before then. Q There is a photo that was released, I believe in the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and has been reported. Are you aware of a photo of you on the island? A Yes. Q And was that the -- or what you were describing of looking over the cliff? Would it be safe to assume that that's when the photo was taken? A Yes. It's entirely confirmatory, that photo. Mr. Spectre. Had you seen that photo before it was released by the Department of Justice? Secretary Lutnick. No. Mr. Spectre. Did you know it existed? Secretary Lutnick. No. Mr. Emmer. At this time, I would like to introduce majority exhibit 2, and these are photos that were released by the Department of Justice as part of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. [Lutnick Majority Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.] BY MR. EMMER: Q And, for the record, these are images showing multiple masks of different male faces hanging on the walls of a room at Mr. Epstein's island, with a dentist chair in the middle of the room. Secretary Lutnick, when you visited Epstein's island, did you see or enter this room? A No. Q Have you seen pictures of these masks before? A No. Q The reason that we introduce this is many people online have speculated that one of the masks resembles you, specifically the one on the first page in the middle. What's your response to"], [8904, 8, 25, "Page 26", null, null, "these claims? A You've got to be kidding me. That is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I've ever heard. What, a bald man? I have hair. Look. I mean, I don't have many, but at least I have some. That is not remotely me. That's nonsense. Q Thank you. During your visit to the island, did you discuss the company AdFin Solutions with Mr. Epstein? A No. Q And what is AdFin Solutions? A It was a company that attempted to create an exchange for online ads. They went out of business. Q Were you personally an investor in AdFin Solutions? A No. Q Was Cantor Fitzgerald an investor in AdFin Solutions? A Yes. Mr. Terwilliger. Mr. Emmer, just so the record's clear, I believe there's different -- . We can't hear over here. Mr. Terwilliger. Sure. Just so the record is clear, Mr. Emmer, I think you may want to ask which part of Cantor Fitzgerald. There's multiple subsidiaries, -- or the Secretary could offer a little bit more information on which part of Cantor Fitzgerald was an investor. BY MR. EMMER: Q Which part of Cantor Fitzgerald was an investor? A Cantor Fitzgerald had a subsidiary that did venture capital investing with small investments in many companies in sort of high-risk investments, and then those would then have subsidiary companies that might be for each particular investment. It was called Cantor Ventures, and so often the company would be called CV, so"], [8905, 8, 26, "Page 27", null, null, "Cantor Ventures would be CV. But it was a venture capital arm of Cantor Fitzgerald, so sort of multiple layers down the subsidiary chain. Q And the reason we ask is there was a stock purchase agreement that was released as part of the Epstein Files Transparency Act that you signed on behalf of CVAFH and Mr. Epstein signed. Did you know that Mr. Epstein was an investor in this company AdFin? A No. Q When did you learn that he was an investor? A To the best of my knowledge, when these documents were released. Best of my recollection. Q And would you have been aware of all the investors, whether they were individuals or entities, in any of Cantor Fitzgerald's portfolios? A No. Of venture capital investments? No. Q And, for the record, had you and Mr. Epstein ever invested in the same company prior to this occurrence? A No. Not that I would know of. Mr. Grant. The signatory page from the investment to AdFin Solutions, you said you had not seen that -- or I'm sorry -- that you -- let me rephrase. Is it common for another investor in a VC deal to have the signatory page from another investor? Secretary Lutnick. No. I found it inexplicable and unsettling that he had -- that it was released, that my company's signature page would be in someone else's files. It is -- it's unsettling. Mr. Emmer. And, when a stock purchase agreement is executed and the individuals are signing, they're typically not in the same room. Is that right? Secretary Lutnick. That is correct. Mr. Grant. And do you have any idea of how Mr. Epstein would've come across the signatory"], [8906, 8, 27, "Page 28", null, null, "page? Secretary Lutnick. No. I find it inexplicable and unsettling. Mr. Emmer. At this time, I'd like to introduce majority exhibit 3, and this is an email that you are not a recipient of, dated May 4th, 2013, from Jeffrey Epstein to David Mitchell, discussing AdFin and a potential meeting between you and Mr. Epstein. [Lutnick Majority Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.] BY MR. EMMER: Q Mr. Secretary, do you know who David Mitchell is? A Yes. Q How do you know him? A He was the husband of one of my wife's friends. Q Were you in contact with him during this period of spring 2013? A I may have been. Q What did you understand his relationship to be with Jeffrey Epstein? A I don't recall knowing that he had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Q And what we're specifically interested in here, one it says -- one of the lines says, \"I think I am seeing H. Lutnick later. Cool restaurant in Williamsburg.\" Do you recall meeting with Epstein at a restaurant in Williamsburg in May of 2013? A I did not. I mean, this seems to think that David Mitchell was planning on seeing me, not Mr. Epstein. But, as I testified, the only times that I recall ever seeing him are the ones that we've gone through already. Mr. Emmer. At this time, I'd like to introduce majority exhibit 4, and this is an email chain, dated May 28, 2018, between Jeffrey Epstein and a redacted email labeled as HWL. It is Bates marked EFTA1050772."], [8907, 8, 28, "Page 29", null, null, "[Lutnick Majority Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.] Secretary Lutnick. Okay. BY MR. EMMER: Q We discussed your emails earlier, sir. Is this HWL email yours? A Yes. Q And the email chain begins with Mr. Epstein asking you, \"What do you think the prospects for AdFin are?\" Why would Mr. Epstein be emailing you directly about the prospects for AdFin? A I don't know. AdFin was a company that's objective was to become an exchange for internet ads. So it was pursuing companies that put out ads -- like banks do a lot of ads, you know, big advertisers, and websites. So it was marketing to everyone it could possibly find to use their services to buy their ads cheaper, you know, for the advertiser to not use an ad agency and get the money directly and -- you know, the advertisers are more efficient. And so it would've been out talking to everybody. So it wouldn't surprise me that people knew about it. I was not -- it wouldn't have been unusual. It was out there trying to make -- get attention. Q And, given your previous testimony as it relates to emails that you sent, is it safe to assume that this response was you personally? A This was -- this was me, because it says \"HWL.\" Q And, for the record, can you please read the email that you sent back? A Yeah. But this stemmed on another note. So it must've stemmed from something else. But it says -- you want me to read just -- Q Just what you sent."], [8908, 8, 29, "Page 30", null, null, "A Oh. \"Producing revenue finally. This is their year. Next 12 months they need to become economically self-sufficient.\" Q And Mr. Epstein replied to your email and said, \"Thanks. How long until Sherry is ready, and can I buy my guesthouse?\" To which you responded, \"Probably 4 years,\" in parentheses, \"Pierre.\" What is Pierre? A So he had made a joke that he would buy my house as his guesthouse because I had bought the top of the Pierre Hotel. It was an apartment. It still is -- a large, again, unfinished -- unfinished apartment. So he just got the hotel wrong. Q It wasn't a serious offer by Epstein to purchase your townhome? A It was a -- sort of a snarky joke -- or a joke. Q And the committee understands, through public reporting and records, that an Epstein-affiliated trust had owned that townhome that you moved into prior to you. Did Epstein -- during your acquisition of that property, did Epstein have any role in the sale of that property to you? A No. I bought my townhouse from someone named Charles de Gunzburg (ph) who owned it. So Epstein did not own the house. So I don't know what that's in reference to. Charles de Gunzburg (ph) owned the house, and I bought the house from Charles de Gunzburg (ph)."], [8909, 8, 30, "Page 31", null, null, "[12:04 p.m.] Mr. Spectre. You testified earlier about having one distinct four-part email exchange with Jeffrey Epstein ever. Is this that email chain? Secretary Lutnick. This is two of it. It may have been, like, disconnected. Sorry, I can't -- I'm holding my hands slightly separate. Sorry. Mr. Terwilliger. Mr. Emmer, on that point, I do think, for the sake of completeness, I would just proffer to the Committee that if it were to look at document EFT Alpha 01050718, you will see that there was a prior communication between Secretary Lutnick and Jeffrey Epstein around the building of the Frick expansion, and that is how we go from that subject to another note initiated by Mr. Epstein. Mr. Emmer. Thank you. [Lutnick Majority Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.] BY MR. EMMER: Q At this time, I'd like to introduce what will be marked as majority exhibit 5. And for the record, it appears that you are not a recipient of this email. And this is an email from Jeffrey Epstein from \"redacted,\" dated October 19th, 2009, and it is Bates marked EFTA243886. And it appears to be a message passed along to Mr. Epstein from Rich Barnett about you wanting to speak to Mr. Epstein. Secretary Lutnick, who is Rich Barnett? A He was someone who worked for me at Cantor Fitzgerald. So on my staff. Q And we're reviewing an email from October of 2009. Do you have any recollection of why you would have been trying to get in touch with Epstein? A I don't have any recollection. But Rich Barnett was responsible for my sort of construction and things associated with that. So it may have been that I was doing something at my"], [8910, 8, 31, "Page 32", null, null, "house. But I shouldn't speculate. I don't know. And I did not speak to him. Q Thank you. [Lutnick Majority Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 were marked for identification.] BY MR. EMMER: Q At this time, I'd like to introduce what will be marked as majority exhibit 6 and 7. Majority exhibit 6 is an email dated Monday, April 4th, 2011, from Lesley Groff, Jeffrey Epstein's secretary, sent to Mr. Epstein, saying, \"Howard Lutnick returned your call.\" And that is Bates numbered EFTA654552. Majority exhibit 7 is a calendar reminder dated the very next day, April 5th, which appears to show a scheduled callback between you and Mr. Epstein. The reminder states, \"JE to call Howard Lutnick today. Call Matthew to organize.\" And that is Bates marked EFTA02191245. For the record, it appears as though you are not a recipient of either one of these exhibits. Secretary Lutnick, do you know who Ms. Lesley Groff is? A I do not. Q According to the email, you returned Epstein's call. We are early April of 2011. Do you have any recollection of why you'd be returning a call from Mr. Epstein? A As I think I said in my opening statement, he had something to tell me, or so I was told, is the best of my recollection from 15 years ago. So I must -- my office must have suggested I call him back to hear what he had to say, and we were unable to connect by phone. And that led to my second encounter with him, with my best recollection being I rang his bell, walked into his foyer with my dog. My wife waited outside with my other dog. That one wouldn't be good to bring into"], [8911, 8, 32, "Page 33", null, null, "someone's house. I waited for him to come down. He told me what he had to say. And, remember, this is a long time ago. My best recollection was it had to do with scaffolding. BY MR. SPECTRE: Q When you say scaffolding, are you talking about the construction on your property or his? A Yes. Q So it was a discussion between neighbors about work that might affect one another? A I think my best recollection is he was planning on doing scaffolding, which would sort of be annoying to my property. So he was sort of telling me that he was -- something. This is my best recollection of an inconsequential and meaningless conversation 15 years ago. So I'm not -- I'm just saying that's my best recollection, was it was the topic of scaffolding. I can't give you more. Anything else I tell you would just be speculating as to what it was about. Q So, generally, when you say \"inconsequential and meaningless,\" in this case you mean it was just kind of a mundane conversation that would be normal between neighbors of any sort? A Right, that he had some sort of plan that he -- in his house, and he was letting me know that it would be annoying. Q Thank you. Mr. Emmer. And this meeting that you've referenced, during your hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee last year you discussed your interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and mentioned an hour-long meeting at Jeffrey Epstein's home in 2011. Is this the same interaction that you just described related to scaffolding? Secretary Lutnick. Yeah. His documents, the documents in these files, had set aside an hour, which is what I was referring to. The only interaction I recall was the one I just articulated. I didn't"], [8912, 8, 33, "Page 34", null, null, "have another interaction. His schedule said other things. That was wrong. The only interaction I've had I'm here describing to you accurately what my best recollection, literally to my recollection, could be. Mr. Spectre. Did the topic of massages ever come up again besides that first interaction you had with Mr. Epstein? Secretary Lutnick. Never. [Lutnick Majority Exhibit No. 8 was marked for identification.] Mr. Emmer. At this time, I would like to introduce what will be marked as majority exhibit 8. While we're waiting, I understand another member joined. Can they please identify themselves for the record? Mr. Walkinshaw. James Walkinshaw, Virginia-11. Mr. Emmer. Thank you. Mr. Khanna. And Ro Khanna, California-17. Mr. Emmer. And this is Bates marked EFTA475742. This is an email chain from May of 2018. Mr. Lutnick -- or Secretary Lutnick -- do you recall sending this email. Secretary Lutnick. No. As I've told you, if it says Howard Lutnick, it was sent by Matthew Gilbert. And he's the one that sees them, meaning I don't. I don't see them. They are not literally on my computer screen. They're on his. Mr. Spectre. I'm sorry if you said this already, but just for the record, who is Mr. Gilbert to you? Secretary Lutnick. Mr. Gilbert is my longtime assistant in my office. He worked for me for 20 years. Mr. Spectre. So this would be the normal way he would handle emails from all sorts of people, not just Jeffrey Epstein?"], [8913, 8, 34, "Page 35", null, null, "Secretary Lutnick. Correct. The point was, if you emailed that email, it was to Matthew Gilbert. Everyone learned that he would respond to them. Sometimes he would do it on his own. Sometimes he would do it in mine. But it was always just to him. I didn't even read them. I didn't see them. Mr. Spectre. Thank you. BY MR. EMMER: Q And this relates to the blocking of the views of the park from your townhome. Is that right? A Yes. The Frick was -- is an architecturally important structure built around the turn of the century, or something like that, and it was beautiful. And they, the museum, had wanted to knock down parts of it and build a high-rise, which we found unusual and bothersome. Q And you may have discussed this in your opening statement, but why did you reach out to Epstein related to the Frick? A So the way the block works is there is a multi-unit co-op that is the first building inside the number one or number three, and then there is Jeffrey Epstein's townhouse, and then mine and then others on the other side. There was a group of owners, tenants, people who lived in that building who were fighting the Frick building it. They contacted me after a while. And then at some point they asked me if I could contact Epstein to have him be involved. But it was just neighbor -- they contacted me, asked me to contact him. But by asking me, they asked, effectively, Matthew Gilbert, who then contacted him. Q Secretary Lutnick, the majority's hour is coming to an end. I want to ask you some general questions as it relates to Mr. Epstein's crimes. For the record, did you ever witness Mr. Epstein have sexual contact of any kind with any young woman or girl?"], [8914, 8, 35, "Page 36", null, null, "A No. Q Did you ever witness Mr. Epstein receive a massage from young women or girls? A No. Q During your interactions with Mr. Epstein, did Mr. Epstein ever discuss sexual acts of any kind with you? A No, other than that which he said he had the right kind of massage. Q Did you ever see or meet any young woman or girl at Mr. Epstein's office or residence? A No. Q Did you ever have any sexual contact with any young woman or girl in the presence of Epstein? A No. Q Did you ever receive any massages from any young woman or girl brought to you by or introduced to you by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell? A No. Mr. Emmer. We will go off the record. [Recess.] . All right. We can go back on the record. Good afternoon, Secretary Lutnick. My name is . I'll be conducting most of the questioning for the minority today. Before we begin the questioning, I'd like to note for the record that this transcribed interview is not being videotaped. The majority has decided that the American people don't deserve to watch the testimony that you will provide today. They have decided, instead, that the American people can find and read the transcript of your testimony if it is released at some date in the future. Today's transcribed interview, originally announced on March 3rd, appears designed to preempt a motion to subpoena Secretary Lutnick's testimony by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, but"], [8915, 8, 36, "Page 37", null, null, "that does not justify keeping these proceedings off camera. Committee Republicans have claimed that this investigation is being conducted in the interest of transparency for the public and for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. To that end, the Committee has videotaped multiple prominent witnesses who have appeared for testimony in the Epstein investigation, and the majority has released those videos shortly after the testimony was complete. The Committee has videoed and released the testimony of Ghislaine Maxwell, Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, and Les Wexner. Oversight Republicans videotaped the testimony of President Bill Clinton and former Secretary Hillary Clinton, and those videos were released to the public 3 days after the conclusion of their depositions. The American people and the survivors of Epstein's crimes deserve the same of today's testimony. The fact that Secretary Lutnick is present for a transcribed interview, rather than a deposition, does not change our obligation to transparency. Earlier this Congress, Oversight Republicans investigated the now-debunked theory that the previous administration used an autopen to take action without President Biden's knowledge. As part of that investigation, Oversight Republicans interviewed 14 former Democratic White House officials. The overwhelming majority, 11 of the 14, were conducted as transcribed interviews. Yet every single interview, including the transcribed interviews, was videotaped, and every single video was released to the public. Committee Republicans have set one standard for officials in a Democratic administration and a separate and less transparent standard for officials in a Republican administration. That is a political distinction, not a principled one. To be clear, the minority welcomes Secretary Lutnick's appearance and testimony, but we believe the American people should be able to watch today's interview and reach their own conclusions about today's testimony."], [8916, 8, 37, "Page 38", null, null, "And with that, I will move to substantive questions. Good afternoon, Secretary Lutnick. As I said, my name is . And as you know, today's conversation will focus on your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I would like to start with the interview that you gave to the New York Post in October of last year. I know it was discussed a little bit in the previous round. Some of these questions might be repetitive to some degree. I'll try to minimize that to the extent possible, but there is going to be some overlap. In that interview last year you described your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in detail. Substantial parts of that interview have since been called into question. So we will just go over the interview one piece at a time and establish which parts are accurate. [Lutnick Minority Exhibit A was marked for identification.] . So I will introduce as minority exhibit A a written transcript of the portion of that interview that related to Mr. Epstein. I'll give you a moment to look that over if you'd like to. Secretary Lutnick. Can I have a copy for the lawyer. . Yeah. There were, I think, three in there. Secretary Lutnick. Oh, this is multiple pages. . Yeah. And I'll always hand you three of four for your counsel to look at. Mr. Mayron. Who prepared this transcript? . It was prepared by us. We confirm to you the accuracy of it. If you have some specific reason to believe there's a part that's not accurate, of course we're happy to discuss that. Mr. Mayron. The first line says, \"I would be remised.\" Is that what was said? . Yeah, that was our best interpretation. I think you could reasonably interpret it as likely being \"remiss.\" EXAMINATION"], [8917, 8, 38, "Page 39", null, null, ": Q We're going to go over it one by one as well. A That's all right. I'm just going to read it quickly. Q Of course. A Okay. Q Great. I'm going to break it up into pieces. The only thing I will do is skip the parts where the interviewer interrupted you with words like \"right\" or \"interesting.\" Just starting at the outset, you were asked how well you knew Jeffrey Epstein, and you started by saying, quote, \"All right. So we are in number 11, and he lives in number 9.\" So is it correct that you did -- and maybe still do, I'm not sure -- live at 11 East 71st Street in New York City? A Yes, I have a townhouse at 11 East 71st Street. Q And is that what you were referring to here when you said number 11? A Yes. Q And as far as you know, is it correct that Mr. Epstein lived at 9 East 71st Street? A Yes, that was his residence. Q And is that what you were referring to here when you said number 9? A Yes. Q Is it correct that those two homes are adjacent to each other? A Yes. Q They share a wall? A Yes. Q And then you said, quote, \"So we renovate. We buy our house, and our house is pigeons and mice. Okay, that's it. It was derelict.\""], [8918, 8, 39, "Page 40", null, null, "\"Right.\" \"So we build. We rebuild our house. We move in in 2005.\" And I'll stop there. So I heard you say in the previous round you bought your home, I think, in 1997. Is that correct? A That's correct. Q And did you know at the time that you purchased the home that the home had previously been owned by Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner? A I don't know. I knew I bought it from Charles de Gunzburg. So that I remember. I don't know if I knew anything else. Q Is it that you are not sure whether or not you knew at the time that the home had been previously owned by Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner? A When I bought the house, I didn't know. I don't recall knowing. Q You don't recall whether or not you knew at the time. Is that right? A Right. Q Okay. It is possible that you knew. It's possible that you did not know. Am I interpreting that correctly? A No. I don't recall knowing. I recall -- what I did know was I bought the house from Charles de Gunzburg. That I know. I don't know if I knew who owned it previously, and I can't say as I sit here today from whatever, almost 30 years ago, what I knew or didn't know. But I certainly didn't know when I bought it. Q I'm sorry. There's just -- there's a little contradiction between those two parts. You are not sure today whether or not you knew at the time that the home was owned by Jeffrey Epstein. Is that fair?"], [8919, 8, 40, "Page 41", null, null, "A No. I bought my house from Charles de Gunzburg, and I do not recall knowing when I bought the house who owned it previously. Q Yes. So sitting here today, you could not be certain as to whether or not you knew at the time who the previous owners were, is what I hear you saying. A Well, I'm trying to be clear. I remember clearly I bought the house from Charles de Gunzburg. He was the owner of the house. I don't -- I can't remember as I sit here today, almost 30 years later, whether I ever knew subsequently that I learned who owned the house previously. I just don't remember as I sit here. Q But the narrow question is just, at the time you bought the home, did you know whether the home was previously owned by Jeffrey Epstein? And I think -- I think you're saying you're just not sure either way, it was a long time ago. A I don't think so. Q I'm sorry. \"No, I don't think so\" is unclear for us -- for me. No, you don't think you knew, or you're just not sure whether or not you knew? A I knew I bought the house from Charles de Gunzburg. That I knew. Q I'm crystal clear on that part. No doubt about it. The narrow question is just, at the time of purchase, did you know that the home had previously been owned by Jeffrey Epstein? A Before Charles de Gunzburg owned it, I don't remember whether I ever learned that at that time. Meaning, at the time I purchased it, did I learn that? I don't know. I don't recall and I don't know. Q You don't recall whether or not you knew at the time you purchased it, right? A When I agreed to buy the house, I surely didn't know. How is that? Is that helpful? Q Well, it is, but it's not quite the same thing as the earlier statement. I'm not suggesting that you did or did not know. It's just I think I heard you say, \"It was 30 years ago, I don't recall whether or not I knew.\""], [8920, 8, 41, "Page 42", null, null, "But then there have been a few statements that suggest, \"No, I did not know that it was previously owned by Epstein.\" So I just want to pin down which of those it is. A I don't know and I don't think I ever knew that Jeffrey Epstein owned the house that I bought. Is that helpful? Q Yes. Is that new information for you here today? A That what? Q That Jeffrey Epstein previously owned your home? A Yes. Q Okay. A I don't know that to be true. Q Has it ever been suggested to you or have you ever heard that Jeffrey Epstein previously owned your home? A I don't think that that's true. So, I guess, as I sit here today, I don't think that's true. Q I got that, but that's not quite the question I asked. Has it ever been suggested to you -- or have you ever heard somebody say -- that Jeffrey Epstein previously owned your home? A I can't recall as I sit here today. Q Is it correct that you did some kind of large-scale renovation project on the home? A In my home, yes, of course. Q And is it correct -- and I think I heard you say it in the previous round -- that you moved in in 2005? A Yes. Q Okay. So the next part is, quote, \"Okay. Jeffrey Epstein is arrested in, like, '08, I think, or something"], [8921, 8, 42, "Page 43", null, null, "like that. So knock on the door. His assistant on like a Saturday says, 'Mr. Epstein, your neighbor, would like to invite you over for coffee.'\" So I can cover the first part of that, which is that Mr. Epstein was arrested in 2006, but he did plead guilty to solicitation of a minor in 2008. A question for you is -- and I think you described it in some detail previously -- is it correct that Mr. Epstein's assistant did knock on your door on a Saturday morning because Mr. Epstein wanted to invite you over for coffee? A Say that again? Q Is it correct that, as far as you can recall, Mr. Epstein's assistant knocked on your door, to the best of your recollection, on a Saturday morning, because Epstein wanted to invite you over for coffee? A I don't know if it was a Saturday or not, but I do recall that someone who worked for him knocked on our door and invited us for coffee. Q Was it framed as Mr. Epstein would like to invite you over for coffee? A I wasn't -- the person didn't tell me. They told someone who worked for me. It was an assistant of -- someone who worked for Epstein knocked on the door and spoke to someone who worked for me and said, \"Your neighbor would like to invite you over for coffee.\" But it's not a conversation I participated in, so I'm trying just to give you the context. Q I understand. You were not directly a party to that conversation? A I was not. Q The next part is, quote, \"So my wife and I go next door. You know, we walk the seven steps, right, to the next house for coffee. We share a wall, right? So it's in New York City. So he invites us in, we have coffee and this, and he says, 'Do you want a tour?' We said, 'Great.'\" I'll stop there. So is it correct that you and your wife did go over to Epstein's house that day?"], [8922, 8, 43, "Page 44", null, null, "A Oh, I don't know if it was that day. Q It might have been a later date? A Correct. Q Is it correct that Mr. Epstein did offer you a tour? A Yes. Q And is it correct that you and your wife did agree to the tour? A Yes. Q Prior to this interaction, did you have any knowledge of who Jeffrey Epstein was? A Not that I can think of now, no. Q I think in the interview you then said that he, meaning Epstein, has got a really big house. I think we all at this point understand that that is an accurate statement. And then you were asked whether you visited every room of Epstein's house, and you said, quote, \"He's got -- well, I'll tell you. So his house is, like, super big, really wide. And so he gives me a tour in the living room -- big living room -- and then across from it is double doors. I assume it's the dining room. And he opens the doors, and there is a massage table in the middle of the room and candles all around and stuff.\" And I'll stop there. So is it correct that he did give you a tour and that you recall the tour as you describe it here? A Yes. So just -- we were in the living room for coffee, and my recollection is we went across the hall to the next room, which he opened the door. I assumed it was a dining room. And that's the massage table, as is described here. Q Is the part about the candles accurate to your recollection? A Yes. Q Were the candles lit? A I don't recall."], [8923, 8, 44, "Page 45", null, null, "Q Okay. And then you said, quote, \"So I asked very insightful, cutting questions. I say to him, 'Massage table in the middle of your house? How often do you have a massage?' And he says, 'Every day.' And then he, like, gets, like, weirdly close to me, and he says, 'And the right kind of massage.'\" I'll stop there. Is that statement accurate to the best of your recollection? A Well, I'm being sarcastic when I say I asked very insightful, cutting questions. I'm just kidding. And it's generally right. I'm not saying it's exactly, precisely right. But, generally, yeah, that's what I recall. Q As far as you remember, are any of these details sort of embellishments? Like, do you recall him actually getting weirdly close to you? A I think that's right. I think that's right, what I said. Q All right. And then you said, \"Now, my wife is standing here. So she looks at me, and I look at her, and we say, 'I'm sorry, we have to go.' And we left.\" I'll stop there. Do you recall that happening? A Well, I don't -- I recall the sense of that. I don't recall exactly saying those words. But I certainly recall the sense of that, that we decided we had to go. Q Do you recall a verbal exchange to that effect or more of a general sense? A I don't recall the precise nature of the words. A general sense that we excused ourselves. Q And that's what I was going to ask. Is it that you sort of cut off the tour early, as far as you can remember?"], [8924, 8, 45, "Page 46", null, null, "A Yes. Q Did Mr. Epstein have any particular reaction to you sort of abruptly excusing yourself? A Not that I recall. Q Did you give a particular reason for needing to excuse yourself? A I don't remember anything other than we decided to excuse ourselves. Q And then you said, quote, \"And in the six or eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.\" I'll stop there. Is it true that before you got back to your home you and your wife decided that you would never be in the same room as Mr. Epstein again? A I think the meaning of that is right, which is that we discussed that I would not put myself in a situation with him again, that I would not have a personal or professional relationship with him. I would avoid him. That was the point of our discussion. It was an informal conversation that I'm recalling 20 years later, but the point of it is right. Q And so that is - what I'd like to do is separate the theme or the idea from the literal accuracy of the specific words. So when you say, \"My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again,\" is it -- it's not necessarily a literal decision that you will never allow yourself to be in the room with him again, it's just that you don't want to build a relationship with him? Is that it? A I would not establish a personal and professional relationship with him and I would avoid him. So it was basically a conversation with me and my wife that says avoid. We came to the discussion of avoid, which I did. Q Was it, as far as you can remember, a decision that, as you described it, \"If I see him in a"], [8925, 8, 46, "Page 47", null, null, "room in the future, I will not be in that room\"? Was it at that level? Or was that an embellishment or sort of extra language there? A Remember, it's a podcast 20 years later that I'm trying to make a point that I -- and I didn't, by the way. I avoided having a personal and professional relationship with him. I avoided him. So I think it was right. I think the point of the podcast is right. What I said was right. I avoided him. And I never put myself in a situation with him ever again personally, me, as a man. He had no boundaries. I avoided him. Q Yeah. So the question of what the interactions were later in the future, after the tour, we'll walk through those. You've done some of that. I was just trying to get a really clear sense of what you recall the decision being on the day of the tour. It sounds like -- but, please, you tell me -- was it -- it's not that it was a literal decision to never be in the same physical room as him, because that's what the words say, but I think -- are you saying that that is not literally accurate? A It was a podcast, and as I said in the next words, \"That's my story.\" So it was a podcast. I was describing 20 years later a conversation I had with my wife. It was informal. It wasn't trying to be literal. It was trying to tell a story and be descriptive, which I thought was an accurate description, which was that I would avoid establishing a professional and personal relationship with him. I would avoid him. And I did. So it says, \"I will never.\" I wasn't -- I wouldn't say it was literal, meaning I was. He did tell me something in the foyer while I had my dog. But the point of it I think was accurate, actually, and literally the way I live, which was that I did not establish a personal or professional relationship with him. I avoided him. And I saw him two other times in his whole -- in my whole life, two other times. That's it. Q So the next part says, quote, \"So I was never in the room with him socially, for business,"], [8926, 8, 47, "Page 48", null, null, "or even philanthropy.\" Is that statement true? A Yes. Q So is it your testimony that you were never physically in a room with Jeffrey Epstein after the day of the tour? A Again, this was differentiating me so that I would not put myself, Howard Lutnick, in a position to be with him, alone with him. So I was with my wife with him, as I've described earlier today, at a lunch on the island 7 years later, and I did listen to him tell me about scaffolding in his foyer. But I was not -- those were not social engagements with him by me, business engagements with him by me, or philanthropic engagements with him and me as a person. I think that is accurate. Q So I'm just focused on the single sentence, and I'll read it back. Quote, \"So I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy.\" So is it your testimony that that sentence is, in a literal sense, accurate? A It is accurate as to what I meant, which is I, Howard Lutnick, as a man, would not be in a situation with him because I felt him gross and inappropriate and not having boundaries; that I would not put myself in a room with him socially, which I did not, professionally, in business, which I did not, and philanthropically, which I did not. I have described in detail the only two other times I saw him, and they were not social, they were not business, and they were not philanthropic for me, I. I was -- I had lunch with him with my wife and family, which I have described in detail, but that was not me putting myself with him, which is what I said and which is the point I tried to make. Q And so is it that you agree you were in the room with him, full stop, but you don't believe either of those instances you've described qualify as being social or for business or for philanthropy, and that's how the sentence ends up being accurate for you? A This is me talking. The point I made was that I, as a man, would not put myself -- and"], [8927, 8, 48, "Page 49", null, null, "this is a discussion with my wife, right? It's an informal discussion with my wife as we walked from his home where he said something inappropriate. And we discussed that I would not put myself in a circumstance with him, and I would avoid him. And so I did. I avoided him. I was never, Howard Lutnick, I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or philanthropically, alone in a situation where I could be at all with a person who I found inappropriate. So that's correct. It's not literally that --- I did not say and I was not intending to say that I was literally never singularly in the room with him, including with other people, like my wife and my children. That is not what I was saying. I was saying I would not put myself in a position that would be with him alone. Why would I do that? And I said I wouldn't and I didn't. So I thought it was accurate. Q So from your point of view, just as a reader of a very simple, straightforward sentence, I think we can agree that you were in the room with Jeffrey Epstein subsequent to the tour of his home. Is that right? A I, without my wife, was not in the room with him socially, for business, or philanthropy. I was with him with my wife and family for lunch on the island in 2012, which I have gone through. But I was never in a social situation with him, Howard Lutnick, I was never in a business situation with him, Howard Lutnick, and I was never in a philanthropic situation with him, Howard Lutnick, ever. Q Yeah. It just -- it drifted a little bit from the question. Is it correct that you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein subsequent to the day of the tour? A I'm going to stick to my answer. I thought it was descriptive and accurate. Q But if I could just get an answer to the question itself, which is, is it correct that you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein in a literal sense subsequent to the day of the tour of his home? A Again, I have described it correctly, and I'm going to stick to my answer. Q And you interpreted, if I'm hearing it correctly, you interpreted the word \"I\" in this"], [8928, 8, 49, "Page 50", null, null, "statement to mean you alone. Is that right? A It's more than interpreted. I'm the one who said it. I'm telling you what I meant. I am telling you what I meant. And that's what I said, which is that -- and I've already described it. Q But is it right that you intended to convey -- as far as you can recall from the interview last year -- you intended to convey with the word \"I\" that you were speaking only about yourself individually, not in the context of anybody other than you and Epstein being in the room? When you said \"I,\" you just meant I, Secretary Lutnick, alone, was never in the room with Jeffrey Epstein? A I think that's generally right. I'm talking to my wife informally as we leave, and we were discussing me. That's the only person we were discussing, is me, and that I would avoid, and I did. Q Do you -- and you may have touched on this. Apologies if you did. The island visit I think you characterized as not social. Did I hear that correctly? A No. Q Would you characterize the island visit as social? A I would describe a lunch with my wife and my family and the other couple and their family, yes, I would describe that as a social lunch, meaningless and inconsequential social lunch. I agree. Q Okay. So then it is correct to say you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein socially, but, from what I hear you testifying, because there were other people present, this statement from the interview was still accurate? A This statement was accurate because as the person who said it in describing a conversation, an informal conversation I had with my wife, I was describing that I would not be in a room with him socially, that I would not put myself in that position, which I never was. You are describing something entirely different than what I was expressing, which is a conversation with my wife where she and I discussed that I would not put myself in there. That's why I said \"I.\" I didn't say \"we.\" It would have been easy for me to say \"we.\" I said, as"]], "truncated": false, "filtered_table_rows_count": 96, "expanded_columns": [], "expandable_columns": [[{"column": "deposition_id", "other_table": "depositions", "other_column": "id"}, "title"]], "columns": ["id", "deposition_id", "segment_index", "speaker", "start_seconds", "end_seconds", "text"], "primary_keys": ["id"], "units": {}, "query": {"sql": "select id, deposition_id, segment_index, speaker, start_seconds, end_seconds, text from segments where \"deposition_id\" = :p0 order by id limit 51", "params": {"p0": "8"}}, "facet_results": {}, "suggested_facets": [], "next": "8928", "next_url": "https://epstein-data.com/deposition_transcripts/segments.json?deposition_id=8&_next=8928", "private": false, "allow_execute_sql": true, "query_ms": 76.06043480336666, "source": "Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law 119-38) DOJ Production", "source_url": "https://www.justice.gov/epstein", "license": "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0", "license_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/"}